Thank you, Jeff.

I would like to call to order the city council study session of July 7th, 2026.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

There it goes.

Councilmember or Deputy Mayor Bushnell.

Present.

Councilmember Diaz.

We're starting the meeting, please.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Diaz.

Councilmember Hines.

Is absent.

Councilmember Palmer.

Councilmember Rembaugh?

Here.

Councilmember Sidalgay.

Here.

Councilmember Scott.

Here.

Councilmember Walker.

Here.

And Mayor Ibsen.

Here.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Our first agenda item is the roadmap to recovery.

I'd like to call on City Manager Hugh and Kim to begin the presentation.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor, members of council and mayor.

I am here to give you an update on the roadmap to recovery.

Today is uh your your opportunity to ask some questions, but more importantly, I have three major things I want to convey for the council and the public.

Um the things that we have taken action on already that have netted out savings today and then savings tomorrow, as well as uh the way we're seeking out innovations.

With that, I'm gonna just breeze through here.

Um the what and the why here again, the roadmap to recovery is a multi-year plan strategy to essentially address our structural deficit as well as get us into more abundance.

I'm getting a little feedback here.

Um I'm not sure if anyone else is picking that up.

Oh, there we go.

Perfect.

Um that is what the roadmap to recovery is.

It's essentially to structurally align our efforts and activities at the city so that we are addressing what is the problem, and that problem is that we have uh expenditures that are growing at essentially two to one when it comes to our revenues.

And why this is important is that this the roadmap to recovery is a it's a roadmap strategy to present council touch points for options that you can take specifically at this time that we find ourselves right now.

We're going through the mid the biannual budget process right now.

We're gonna present to you options going forward, and we want to talk to you about those.

What's caused this problem?

Simply put, in the general fund and the general government, um, higher demand for city services, um, increasing labor costs, health care costs.

Those are growing at uh a pace that is not sustainable.

And so with that, we also have other efforts where the the federal government, the state government in programs that are being eliminated for funding, grant opportunities.

We have an acute opportunity here to also address those at the same time.

So that is the what and the why.

Um again, this is the takeaway for the public for our amazing teams that are potentially watching this now or in future recordings at this point.

I want to talk to you about three things.

First thing is the immediate savings, the the plan that was blessed by the city council uh through a hiring freeze, uh contracting freeze.

I'm here to report on some good news there.

Um this council is taking action.

The city of Tacoma is taking action.

And in the coming weeks and months ahead, we have future savings.

Um I need to just be blunt with this one.

Um through the budget process, um, the team and I will be bringing to council for consideration uh program reductions, program eliminations for your consideration that will net out ongoing savings for the city of Tacoma so that we can uh contain what we are doing now and maybe do a little bit more with little efforts, with hard efforts, some hard choices there.

So tens of millions of dollars in future savings.

And I'll talk a little bit more about all these and then innovation, new ways to work and deliver value for our residents and our patrons that count on the city of Tacoma.

So on the immediate savings front, um, through our hiring freeze, a little over 84 total positions we have frozen at this point.

Just for the general fund, we are projected to save by year end a little over 2.2 million dollars.

And then through all of general government, additional 65 positions, um, we are projected right now to save about 7.4 million dollars total.

Um and for council consideration here for your awareness.

Um we currently are sitting at about uh year to date, about 4.8 million, so a little under five million dollars in all savings just on positions alone.

The questions that you may be wondering of those positions, um, how many positions there are essential?

How can we there's they're all essential positions in the general government, and that's what we're doing right now.

I thank the department directors who have taken this you know arduous task of identifying positions to hold freeze so that we can have these dollars to address not just the here and now but also take a look at how we are actually um situated when it comes to staffing.

Future savings.

So as I mentioned, um right now in the budget development cycle, the calendar, um, all internal service departments we've asked for a 10% reduction along with public safety at 5%, the courts at 5%.

Um right now we're done with the internal service proposals right now.

When I say done, we're going to be bringing those packages to you together.

Um here in the next uh two weeks, we'll be receiving presentations from all of our external departments, including police, fire, and library and the general fund.

And they are bringing those reductions as well.

So I'm looking to bring you some really hard choices, but recommended steps for reductions and potential eliminations for programs.

And then long-term cost controls.

I really through the roadmap, future savings.

Right now, I am uh keenly focused on health care.

As you received the update from finance some two, three weeks ago, our health care costs are unsustainable.

And so we are having those conversations with uh first you all and then with our labor partners to have the conversations on where we can control the costs for what is uh long drive a large and material driver to our sustainable uh funding.

And then in the innovation side, um, just an update for you all.

Um we have merged or plan to merge by January 1, our public works department as well as our environmental services department to a newly created department in the environment and public works department.

Um effective January 1.

It does uh net out to one reduction, a department director.

Additionally, uh we are proposing for the 27-28 the elimination of a deputy city manager position.

I'll talk a little bit about how we're gonna be anticipating how we support through the city manager's office all of our departments.

Um internal service realignments, we have shifted over our labor relations team out of legal.

So they still will work with our legal team, they'll report to human resources.

And um our continuous improvement, our innovation uh team, we're gonna be moving them out of HR into the city manager's office.

So, Ben Thurgood, who you've worked with, um, he'll be on loan for from the from HR to the city manager's office.

We're gonna utilize um Mr.

Thurgood to help support us with this loaned executive program that we have here at the city to pinch hit support our efforts as we don't have a second deputy city manager.

Um the city has been operating for some years with two deputy city managers for internal and external services.

We want to continue to provide that service.

And then I shared this with um the team, um the IPI team, the continuous improvement team that we're bringing in from HR data analytics.

How do we actually capture the results of where we're saving and contouring where we can do uh new innovations, new innovative programs?

This is the team that we're gonna be dropping into and supporting Allison and myself and the full city manager team.

And then another change that we are moving forward, we have noticed all the departments that are impacted for our CED and NCS departments.

Um we are consolidating our housing team out of CED, our economic development department, and we're putting them with our NCS department.

Their focus will be human service programming, housing, and homelessness services.

So the triple H.

That is another change that we're we're going to try to innovate and uh find efforts to streamline services and quite frankly, do more with less potentially.

That is the name of the game for our roadmap here.

And as we look forward, this is the roadmap.

So where we find ourselves right now in 2026, we are in the alignment and option stage.

So the options that we'll be presenting, it's through the biannual budget.

We'll be exploring options, um, providing options for council, and of the tens of millions of dollars potentially in reductions, um, I am not stating here in this public meeting that that's what we will do.

The council will decide, you all as a body will decide what changes you can accept, what other questions, what other ways you want to operate through the budget, and then additionally, what other areas do you want to uh invest our precious resources into, and then as we move forward, we're gonna spend the biennium on analysis and refining those options, um health care options, big changes when it comes to plan design, when it comes to contributions from our employees.

Um we want to do the righteous bargaining that is necessary and and and right.

So we want to work with our our union partners, our city employees to make sure that whatever we do, we're not doing just acutely to solve a crisis today, but puts us on the sure footing that we'll be ready tomorrow.

And then long-term recovery uh continue to change, improve outcomes and deliver sustainable city services.

Um council, I'm here to tell you that as we are talking with our partners from the state, from the county, and uh to a certain extent, limited extent when we hear from changes at the federal government.

Um government will be shrinking.

How do we adapt when it comes to more of those services that are required by our community?

That's what we need to start focusing on, and that's what we want to do as we present more options to you all.

Um again, I just want to close out before I get to the report card where people can find and watch what we're doing is uh again we are saving money today.

We're going to have additional savings tomorrow with the budget development and adoption, and then we're gonna continue to innovate and do things differently and changes in the air, and that's what's on the menu right now, and I look forward to that dialogue with you all in partnership.

Because this is a partnership and it and it is your budget, so I want to share that with you.

Um then as we move forward, this is where people can go.

So forward slash roadmap to recovery for anyone in the public or city employees if they want to take a look at the current savings from the frozen positions, if they want to look at all the details uh we have presented today, um, this is where they can find it forward slash so Tacoma.gov forward slash roadmap to recovery.

And with that, I stand ready to take any questions or concerns.

Thank you, city manager.

Councilmember Walker.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um, and thank you for this.

I I really appreciate the approach, and I think um, you know, showing that we've already had cost savings is really important.

It all sounds logical and good.

I think what the challenge always is, and this is with planning the budget as well, is the numbers are absolutely vital.

But what does that mean for services?

And I don't know what the answer is in terms of how to communicate that with the public, but when we say that we've saved 9.6 million dollars, there are things that we're not doing because of that, right?

So how do we communicate that or where could somebody dig in if they did want to know more?

I mean, on the website it says what those positions are.

Yeah, but is there a like a programming content piece of this in addition to the numbers piece of it?

That'll come through the budget development, the options that we present to you, the budget will have the trade-off conversations of how this will impact because what we're doing right now to just um preserve cash, and I think the public will understand this too, is what we're doing right now from a positional savings, frozen position savings standpoint, is to have the um I'll say it this way the dry powder for council to have uh tackled the challenge.

As we mentioned in our last check-in, the forecasted gap is 40 million dollars.

This these savings, this is a one-time thing, but it helps the council have options to move forward in the budget development for every program reduction or elimination.

We will have, and we're gonna speak it emphatically and and very clear because we want to have the public to be engaged in that.

For every program that we're gonna be eliminating, there is an impact.

For every program that we're going to be reducing, there's an impact, even on the internal service end.

I I think we will try to do our best as we have those conversations with you as well as with the public in the public hearings as well.

Um the team from an engagement standpoint will be going out to community.

We will be um Alison myself with the um the budget office.

We will be doing our best to get out to neighborhoods, to uh neighborhood councils, to groups that we don't engage with.

We want to be out there and talking about these things and when it comes to our services.

So, yes, we need to do a better job, and we're gonna keep doing a better job, and we're gonna make mistakes along the way, and we're gonna get better for that reason.

I I don't know if that answers your question.

I think specifically.

I mean, I think just the recognition that that's coming and that there are things behind the numbers.

Yes.

Um on the website, the roadmap to recovery, is that connected to the budget website, or is the budget development website or web page different than this one?

It'll be different.

So the roadmap to recovery will will be high level um highlighting what's coming out of the budget web page.

So the page that we we hold for our budget development.

Uh that has the more content in there.

Um the roadmap recovery is the strategy page.

Okay, great.

Um, and I really appreciate the second to last slide the um roadmap to recovery graphic.

I think that helps think through this.

And I think you said a lot of really important things on that slide in terms of just the reality of government shrinking and we can't continue to ask partners whose governments are also shrinking, like at the state level to save all the things that we want to save.

And so it is going to be painful.

Um addressing the structural deficits is imperative.

We can't continue to do this every time.

So I think that's both a really good visual, but also I really appreciated the things that you said there, and I think that sets us up for the budget process.

Um and we always go into the budget process with a lot of asks, and there's a lot of needs in the community, but we have to figure out a way to to do this.

Um you have talked a lot about meeting with our labor partners.

Um there's also oh, this was it was that same slide that said partner with community.

Are there conversations that are also happening with community partners like nonprofits and service delivery partners outside of the labor conversations?

I would readily admit um probably not enough.

You know, we're joining our partners at Pierce County when it comes to the um the safety net organizations that were talking about impacts from the Federal Government.

Those are not led by the City of Tacoma.

Um when we talk about our nonprofits that are um tied to program funding or awards from NCS for human services.

Um we will be having conversations and we will be giving notices.

We'll be also engaging in the process of please get engaged too.

Because the righteous process has to be you have to hear about the impacts, understand it.

They don't need to accept it because they also have to come talk to you all about please protect these programs.

This is a natural budget cycle.

Um so we'll do doing more on that one.

I'm gonna take that as a to-do task fund.

And I think that there's a lot of solutions that lie within those organizations.

Umprofits at large are always thinking creatively about solutions.

And I think we would be well served to set those up as conversations for input in addition to the reality check on the budget.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you very much for that question.

Great.

And thank you for the presentation and for keeping this top of mind for us.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmersidalgate.

Uh thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um, building on a question that um Councilmember Walker had around service cuts.

If I look at that slide, I guess this is slide four that shows the uh 9.6.

These are service cuts we are already feeling in many ways.

Correct.

Well, in every way, because this is just continuing to do that.

On that slide, I just want to confirm the general fund impact of 2.2 million dollars.

When future budget uh presentations are made, is that gonna carry over and that 40 million dollars in the general fund reduced to 38 million, or we're still talking about a 40 million and this is a potential 2.2 that could affect that.

That's a great question.

And just for um before I answer your question, I want to set a clarification here.

I should have caught it when Councilman Walker was asking the question.

The total projected savings from our hiring freeze at year end is a total of 7.4 million of that 2.2 million is from the general fund.

But to your question specifically, it's not 9.6 million.

It's not 9.4 million.

It's 7.2.

And so we should also I guess the earlier question was we shouldn't expect uh, you know.

The reason I was asking the question is the expectation from the audience uh watching isn't that we just reduced our 40 million dollar general fund no deficit by 7.4 million.

It is the dry powder we'll be using because many of these positions are essential critical.

We've just try to preserve cash and wherever we can.

We're preserving cash to give us the most flexibility going into a tough budget.

So we should still be thinking about a 40 million dollar.

Bingo, because the reason why this is a multi-year multi-biannual strategy is that I can present to council a structural fix.

It's just I don't believe the council should accept that kind of reduction in one year or two years.

And so we're gonna balance this with the needs of the community with the the wherewithal to fund these programs.

So it's gonna be but I do plan on bringing reductions that will be ongoing that will address the 40 million dollars.

We do need to get that um we have to have a balanced budget.

And I mentioned this in my last touch point with you.

I do plan on bringing you a balanced budget for 27-28.

It will be predicated on using cash along with reductions and potential layoffs as well.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Uh and thank you.

I did want you to continue to reiterate that point that this in the roadmap to recovery, this is an early step in preparing for the longer-term decisions we're gonna have to make as a council, which are gonna be really tough in dealing with it and in your in your responsibility as city manager, you are coming up with some free cash that gives us more flexibility than we've had the last time we talked about.

And in your in your responsibility as city manager, you are coming up with some free cash that gives us more flexibility than we've had the last time we talked about.

Yes.

And and just I want to add two things that you're not prompting, Councilman Sidagi, but I would like to take this opportunity.

First and foremost, your previous city manager also instituted some um contracting freezes.

We are going to see some ending um available resources from ending fund balance from last year as well.

We're going to use those dollars too.

And then the second point, I just made a Cal statement and saying there will be layoffs.

I want to speak directly to our employees that you care deeply about.

We're about six months from potential, you know, four or five, six months from budget adoption.

And uh for our employees and the service reduction proposals and service elimination proposals for our employees, we're taking the time right now for any at-risk positions to work with not just those employees to get them placed in other because there are other enterprises here at the city.

And so that's what we're doing.

My partner, Jackie Flowers has uh been very supportive.

Uh Director Chavez has been very supportive from the utility side.

If you have bacon positions in enterprise lines of business, please hold those positions open.

Director Cook, TVE, if you have because if we have at-risk positions that council is considering to eliminate or reduce, based on my recommendation that I own, I want them to know that we're going to spend the next four to six months trying to place those employees and do that at the same time.

Because that's the right thing to do as well.

So I just wanted to you didn't ask that question, but uh I didn't want to leave that hanging.

I do plan on talking to all our employees tomorrow as well at an all-town hall.

So this is the message I'm taking to them as well.

Um and our employees are asking the questions am I at risk?

When will you know?

I don't know yet.

We are working through that process right now.

Um we're gonna find those things.

Why don't you know?

I'm now I'm just I'm I'm on a tangent here, but we have Connecticoma coming up.

We have other impacts through potential uh actions at November that might have impacts to our wherewithals of city to provide services like the status quo.

So I'll pause there.

Okay, thank you.

Um and I just want to kind of reiterate to the general public.

You know, we talk about the general fund because it's our uh biggest, most open kind of fund.

We have a lot of enterprises fund, which is all these other fees that have to be directed where they go.

I want to remind people we can't take money from Tacoma Creates to plug a general fund gap, it is literally illegal.

Um so when people um offer you know uh suggestions like that, those are tools that we have.

I also want to remind people what we learned uh the last time we had a budget conversation, which is our 40 million dollars is really covered, you know.

27 million dollars is a structural issue between how much we can collect and what our costs are going up, right?

That is a structural issue that we we would have had that 27 million dollars just base.

It is something we've been trying to work with with our state um legislature on fixing.

We had uh a couple of whammies this year, um, the first whammy being almost 10 million dollars, 9.00 million dollars in health care costs as you mentioned.

You know, I you know I'm gonna use my position on this soapbox to say I continuously remind people that you know we're a year and change into a federal administration that has been removing health care protections across the country, and these are the consequences of federal level policies.

Uh I believe we're going to continue to see an increase.

It we shouldn't think that this $10 million is the only thing we're gonna hit because come January 1st we have some really massively draconian uh policies that are being implemented around Medicaid and Medicare, obstensibly to reduce fraud, but what it will end up doing is remove more people from care, which increases cost to everyone else.

Um I'm not making this up.

We've literally lived this story um, you know, several times uh decades ago pre-ACA.

It's the reason why the Affordable Care Act ended up passing because we were seeing these things.

I cannot believe it is only less than two decades since I think only 16 years since it passed, that we are um uh you know basically suffering the same consequences that we had.

So that's another 9.0 million dollars.

We had another six million dollars just from liability because we get sued all the time.

Um we've had you know, it's not massive lawsuits, it's the sum of a lot of smaller lawsuits.

Um they're jointing several uh several liability on a on a municipal level has actually hampered our ability to do really good things all across the state.

Um those were the reasons why we're where we are.

It is not because we waste money, because as I tell everyone, wasting money implies that we have money to waste, which we do not have.

Right?

We have to be about as uh um efficient as possible.

I I am taking this moment to remind people of this because I do want to explain where we are, why we're here, and why we have to have the responsibility of having hard conversations that say it is not that this isn't important, but our line cutoff line has moved, and we just have to deal with it.

And unfortunately, in the general fund, um most of the general fund, the vast majority of the general fund, police fire, and libraries, right?

Yes, sir.

Um homeless services, some other little stuff to you know, not to say that it's little, but in a percentage-wise, it's much lower than the rest, if I'm not mistaken.

I think it's over 80 percent is um police fire and libraries.

So we don't have a lot of choices in going through, so we're gonna have to continue having these conversations and talk about the structural issues that we're facing, just like just like we're facing in our in my household with rising costs that my neighbors are facing in their households and their budgets in rising costs and and knowing that you know we can't afford everything that we used to be able to afford.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Palmer.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um just as a question that just came up.

How much of the budget is libraries versus like fire and and police?

So um I'm gonna get um fact checked here, but um overall the fire department represents about 118, 120 million dollars, um police is larger than that, libr library services on a binary basis.

It's it's over um a little over 33 million, 30 million is your takeaway there.

But it's pretty small compared to those other two buckets.

It is.

Yeah.

But from a standpoint of um where we have um allocated costs to other functions for the city, um, the library is a pure general fund, and that's why it's there, and that's why it's part of that package too.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Um I guess slide six, the innovation slide.

Can you help me understand the consolidation of human services, housing and homelessness within neighborhood and community service?

Am I confused because that's something that's already been started?

It it's starting now, um, so effective this month.

We have the housing division moving over from CED into NCS.

And the purpose of that is to just clearly focus economic development department into economic development along with our arts and cultural vitality division, and then have NCS focused on human services, um, housing and homeless services.

So that full circle lifecycle of you know how we can support the community with services, starting with our safety net human service providers to housing providers, and then to shelter services through our homeless services, as well as our engagement teams that are involved in that as well.

Okay.

I guess I'm confused because I I feel like we were in the community vitality and safety committee.

We're hearing from the the neighborhood and community services mostly when it comes to like homelessness.

I'm not sure if has the other departments come to that.

Maybe Councilmember Rembrandt can help me understand.

Um thanks for the question, Councilmember Palmer, because I, you know, I've been thinking about this since I found out about what we were doing.

Um TCRA was one of the committees that comes to us, and that is definitely an economic development tool with housing.

Um also um Felicia Medlin um who heads up housing, um, affordable housing stuff.

That's all part of the bucket.

That's the NOFA that we go to for the federal government.

So it it really does tie in to be part of CVS, but I would say a lot of times all of these things are all over the place in different committees, but I I I can see why it makes sense.

I also understand what you're what you're talking about.

Okay.

Um I guess I'll just air the concern um of consolidation.

I I understand the need, um, don't get me wrong.

Um but I'm hoping, you know, when it comes to things that are should be top priority for the city, um, like homelessness, to then tuck it even further under another department um is a concern for me.

And so I'm I'm wondering like if this has to happen, what can we do in other areas, maybe um in committees or commissions to still highlight this home, the homelessness issue in Tacoma.

I know we're doing the regional approach, um, but it feels like it it needs to be top of mind and a top priority.

Yeah, and NCS's mission doesn't get degraded because we're bringing over the housing division.

Um homelessness is a top priority.

The heel team will stay in NCS and there'll be focus on the daily contacts, the 301 contacts, the offer of shelter services does not, but I want to be realistic here.

The impacts to federal state funding pullbacks in terms of what we're doing of the 1200 shelter beds that we operate now, uh, Councilmember Palmer, the city does not have the wherewithal currently with a 40 million dollar structural deficit to maintain our shelter services.

Um and so in the previous years, we've gotten somewhat of a reprieve through the state of Washington through uh commerce grant to keep some of our shelters online.

We still have to solve that problem, but I I hear you.

It is a top focus in terms of I don't want to sh say what the number is in terms of all of our sheltering service costs that we're using, not just general fund dollars for right now.

We can't afford that today, we couldn't afford that yesterday, so we have to figure that out.

And that's why we're trying to do new things.

Um that's why we brought on um uh director Esparza and she is working through the process of developing a strategy for um the city council for consideration on how we're going to do this when the finite resources are not there to do what we're doing right now.

Thanks.

And that maybe that leads into my my next question of innovation.

Um when I see like I restructuring is a tried and true way, right, of trying to make the most out of the resources that we have.

When I think of the word innovation, though, I'm thinking of what can we what can we try that we haven't tried before?

Or what can we try that other cities are doing that maybe we can because they're doing it well and it's having a good effect.

Um and so I guess maybe it's a challenge of you know, are are we looking outside the box for um solutions to some of these issues?

Um when I think of again, I'm just gonna reiterate.

I think we we have some opportunities when it comes to like our committees and our commissions in order to um activate them more in some of this work and how much would that take off of the staff that we currently have so that they can focus on other things.

Um just wanted to bring that up.

Um and then I know I've kind of asked staff uh a couple times about um I know we have our our um our dashboard for the budget.

Um I'm hoping that the council might me being a member of council are able to see a little bit more of what's provided um than on the on that dashboard.

Yeah.

Um I went in and looked myself at you know what was available or what was there last year and years I do my research, right?

I like I like to look and get into the weeds.

Um I still had questions, like I still had questions about some of the expenditures and um you know, did we hit our goal there in certain places or not?

Um and so I still have uh I guess ongoing questions when it comes to can I see the budget that's not you know not on the dashboard.

Gotcha.

Um then we we briefly had a conversation also about um you know I went to the uh uh association of Washington Cities, and I understand that some other councils will have an opportunity to look into um revered revenue and expenditure reports.

Um maybe uh attorney botcha can uh help clarify when uh how and when is needed for a council member to be able to see those reports.

What's the requirement?

And if you can clarify, council member, what you mean are referring to by the reports.

So it's my understanding every department is going to have revenue and expenditure reports.

And some other councils in other cities will review those on every and on a normal basis.

Okay.

Some I've worked in cities where council members looked at every invoice.

Those are obviously smaller cities than you have here.

And so it's really up to the council members to decide what level information they want and ask their employee, the city manager, to provide that.

So there's no restriction on access to that information.

It's just a question of asking for it and asking for information that you need in order to answer your questions.

Would that take something like a resolution, or is that something an individual council member could ask for?

It would just be a question of you asking the city manager to provide it.

Okay.

That's good to know.

All right, thank you.

And just for um where we're at in the budget cycle, um, Councilmember Palmer, um, we're at the proposal stage, so departments are developing the proposals.

Um the budget is your budget.

And so if you would like, we can offline that.

We can have more access to that if you want to see the you know the year over year um actual differences.

I would invite that inspection and we can work directly with that.

Um it's a pretty robust budget, but at the same time, I think what you're posing to your colleagues as well as to staff here is that you want more access.

Yep, let's let's work toward this work together.

Thank you.

Councilmore Rumbaugh.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor, and thank you, Hen, for um putting this together, bringing it forward.

Um I just I wanted to just say that it was interesting when we were talking about moving housing under NCS.

My concern is that housing gets buried, not homelessness.

And I just wanted to a reassurance um and I talked to your staff today in my check-in for CVS that that is not the case, that we'll not get I feel like it's more like they're lateral, all of these issues.

Um but I also want to just say out loud that homelessness doesn't mean doesn't always like mean affordable housing and affordable housing doesn't always mean homeless.

I they're they're not always related.

So I just want to say we're not just solving for affordable housing because we have homeless people.

We have people who can't afford to live here, which is a different different problem to solve.

So I just wanted to say that.

Okay.

Um so I just I had a question for you.

When we talk on your um the first, and I really appreciate you putting this bet together about what caused the problem.

Um I think we have just like a really savvy and incredible um group of citizens in our city who really care about what happens here, or they wouldn't reach out.

And so when we say there's higher demand for city services and evolving community expectations, I think that's true.

And we know that from when we look at 311, how many people write in.

Um and I want to say I I'm trying to understand how we stack up with other cities as far as how people use services.

And um, one of the things I think that's really great about our city and also bad about our city is that we're a full service city, meaning we would provide all of those things and they're not on contract basis.

So there is an expectation of better quality service because I have um what I consider my trash can, my trash and my recycling is picked up at my house.

And if I go just a quarter mile down the street, um it's optional that you can get that in Pierce County.

So I just I um just an understanding of if we could if I could have an idea um how we rack up to other cities our size as far as what we provide as as like services compared to contract services.

I would like to know that.

The other thing I think um would be really helpful as you start going through our services as a city, what are the priorities needs that are necessary, like sewer, the sewage, like having that water utilities, and then the optional things.

Like what are other cities consider optional?

I just I want to understand better because when we're talking about level like a providing people a level of service that they're used to.

Um hard to do when you're talking about cutting things.

Um so I just I would love to know more about that if that's possible.

And any I don't know if anyone else is interested in that, but I am.

Yep.

Okay.

The other thing I just wanted to ask a question about as we're asking more of our uh employees who are just that's what makes our city so great.

And I just want to recognize that there are staff in this room right now, and we really appreciate all of you.

Um I want to understand what we're setting up to support them as we see that we may have layoffs that you've mentioned.

Um I also want to make sure that they have what they need to feel that like if they feel like I mean I I I just I see us adding more things to people's plates than what they had before.

Like and so I and I have an example, but I can share it offline.

Um just my concern is um asking someone to do more doesn't mean you get more.

Yeah.

And so I'm just um want to know what what the solution is or how how we're gonna talk about that.

Councilman Rombaugh, thank you very much for those um just really um uh those prompts more than questions, um starting with what you just asked about our employees.

Um I wherever this camera is, I'm I'm speaking directly to our employees.

Um the roadmap to recovery is predicated on asking our employees to do more.

So your question is the right question to ask myself and senior staff, what are we providing to our employees, all right?

From the standpoint of if we're asking you more, if it's not more compensation necessary, or if it is a way in which we're providing.

I think that's a two-way conversation that we need to have with our employees, starting with our labor partners uh to talk about this is happening and to Councilmember Sidalgi's point, there's external factors that are happening.

Uh for those of you that went to AWC, I think you heard the similar notion from most municipalities, local government that are being impacted right now.

Um we're in this together.

How do we get through this?

And so I'm proud to report this is not yet ready to say that this is what we have the signed agreements.

It's gonna take us months, if not years, to figure out where we bargain rightfully.

But in our engagements with our joint labor partners with local six, twenty-six, thirty-one, PPSMA, the the 31 unions that we or contracts that we have right now, there's an open dialogue that's happening right now that this is not something what our labor partners are asking is open up the books, show us the numbers, what is this look like?

We want to have a part in the solution, and that's what we're asking for is to be part of that solution.

Um so maybe we do have conversations about well, what does work look like going forward?

What does it mean to have the the best benefits or benefits that we currently have?

I want to be realistic.

You know, if we need to change something in terms of, let's say, for instance, plan design for healthcare coverage.

If it's too expensive now, it may involve taking a look at the design of those plans.

But it also could be is that what's the most important to our employees?

I want to hear that.

You want to hear that.

And then we need to look towards well, where else can we find relief to at least contain the costs?

The roadmap to recovery, I'm going to use my hand here.

It's not a plan to do this, right?

We're never going to go back to our employees and ask for concessions.

We're asking, let's slow it down and work in partnership so that we can get through this this next uh couple years.

Because unfortunately, this is probably the trappings of the system that we're in, not the city, but just the system.

It's cyclical.

It this happens.

You know, there's we don't want to have boom and bust.

And so everything we're doing for our employees when we ask them to do more, we don't want to just do it for now.

We want to make sure it's durable and sustainable.

So thank you for that.

And then um you mentioned program cuts, and so when we talk about program cuts, a good example.

I don't know if this is happening, but um tidy up to coma.

Yeah.

If we cut tidy up to coma, then we're gonna have um unintended consequences over here.

So I'm just trying to figure out like are we weighing those things?

Because we have a lot of really great programs and environmental services, and I would hate for them to go away because they actually do make a difference.

For instance, um putting up uh poop, poop, like poop but I don't remember what it's called, but uh the poop bag um, you know, the stands that we have.

Doggy stations, thank you.

When we put those up, it keeps um poop from being in the stormwater, which like helps keep it cleaner.

And so I'm just yeah, I just I think I hope that is that something we're kind of thinking about.

Well, I I can actually answer that one.

The proposals right now that are being generated hasn't there's no proposals to reduce or eliminate tidy up.

Okay, great.

And staff understands it's council's decision, it's probably more so there's council ideas to enhance the programs.

We also know there's a disparate impact because tidy up is funded by uh utility taxes.

Yeah.

And so those charges for services has an impact there too.

So we're not looking to eliminate tidy up or reduce tidy up, and quite frankly, it's been doing a lot of I can't tell you, as your city manager, I I I I don't know how to explain this to you, but I'm immensely proud of the environmental service team, tidy up team.

I never knew that um tidy up cans would be so popular, you know, for the additional.

Yeah, I you all did, but I didn't know, and you know, we received so much feedback of we're hearing from neighbors.

We want a tidy up can here, we want it here.

And so we're trying to level set, and the team is trying to figure that out.

So that's not what we're looking to do.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you so much for answering that.

I didn't I didn't say that anything about tidy up to come going away.

Right.

No, I assume that everything was good with that.

So thank you.

It's it's good on that front.

And we are acutely looking at the general fund in terms of what those programs we just don't have enough in the general fund.

And um the one question that I've um posed myself, I'm not going to project that someone's asked me this.

What does it mean for the general fund to shrink if we have all these enterprises and they're fine?

It's not a good outcome.

When you don't have a general fund that could sustain the operations, it you don't have a city that can sustain the operations of those enterprises to our public relies on services being taken care of.

They shouldn't have to always look towards a charge for service or utility tax to pay for those things.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Robot.

Councilmember Hines.

I think Deputy Member Michel, I'll make this relative brief.

Thank you, Hun for the presentation and you know, thank you.

You know, for all your work to get us to kind of the projective savings we've had.

I know it hasn't been uh pleasant, or you know, what you probably got into the work to do, but I think it shows that we're hazard foreshot foresight over how do we kind of start chipping away at what we have in front of us.

I the question I have, and I don't need an answer right now, and I'll just make it really brief is I would love, and I have not yet seen how when you say the the issue of higher demand for city services and involving community expectations.

I I do think we probably need to lay bare um how much we've increased the services we provide since I don't know, say 2020.

Yes.

I mean if even if I go just back to my time on the council, Council Walker's time on the council.

When I started here, we had no hope team.

When I started here, we had one member of the HEAL team, Alison.

One member of the HIL team.

We now have eight.

Uh when I started here, we funded maybe two hundred shelter beds, and now we're up over twelve hundred.

When I started here, we didn't have tidy up to coma.

We um we the fire department did not do bate basic life transportation services.

They only did advan uh advanced life support services.

Um when we say service demands have shifted, it's not some kind of um like oh the public just wants us to be polite and like they have a higher expectation.

It's like we have seen all these needs that the community has brought to us and we are trying to meet those needs.

And that has expanded how much things cost.

And I don't know if we've quite laid that out, so I guess maybe for a future presentation, I'd love to see when we talk about expanding levels of services, how much we've expanded in certain areas from say 2020 till till now.

Um, I think that will be very clear for a lot of folks.

One of the things I think uh it has been really clear with me in this conversation and talking to other cities is we were very lucky in that the federal government provided us with ARPA funding in 2021.

And that was a six over sixty million dollars of money that was given to us in order to meet kind of emergent needs we saw in our community.

And we put that into things like homelessness and home and shelter services and all the other pieces.

And there's a question to be asked, which would be well, why did we spend all this one-time money on these ongoing issues?

And my answer to that question would be well, if the city had millions of dollars laying around, and the community told us here are the issues, and we said, well, we can't use that money to pay for those issues because we don't know if we're gonna have the money later.

I don't think the community would have said, okay, just you know, just sit on the money and hold it until you find something you can spend it on for one-time money.

Uh that that wouldn't have happened.

And we took the dollars we had and we put them towards the most important issues identified by the community.

And again, I just want to reiterate that that um we didn't spend money on what say council member Walker wanted to spend money on, or what I wanted to spend money on, or what any council member back then wanted to spend money on.

We spent money on what were the highest priorities identified by the community at the time in order to meet the service demands.

And I think just by looking at that change, um would be good to think about what would it look like to revert to 2020 levels of service.

I mean I don't think it I don't think any of us are ready for that conversation yet, but it would be interesting just to see what that would look like and just to kind of know what those levels of services look like.

That's a great direction.

We'll we'll we'll we'll noodle on that and we'll bring that back to you because I think that is something that your constituents will want to see as well.

Yeah, as I I do think as we're having the conversation about we don't have enough resources to meet the demand, no one is talking about going all the way back to pre-2020 levels of service.

We're all talking about landing somewhere maybe better than we were six years ago, but maybe not as good as we were a year ago.

I mean that that is to be determined by this council.

We'll have to have a conversation about how we want to do that.

But I do think that would be really clear for the public to see.

Because I I think people do forget like where we were six, seven years ago.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Hines, anybody else have any questions or comments?

Anyone online?

All right.

I just want to thank you so much, City Manager, for all your work on this and also to all the employees and and directors and everybody else.

I know this is uh very stressful times for everybody, a lot of uncertainty out there.

Um I truly believe that no stone is being left unturned at all levels uh to try and make sure that um we try to find a pathboard that works for our community uh to support our employees as best we can and make sure that um you know City of Tacoma has the best uh services that they can provide uh within our ability to provide.

Um of the questions I had is that you know a lot of um there's conversations about reviewing our CBCs.

Yes.

Um I was just kind of curious if you had any updates along that and whether that's a part of this kind of efficiency process, because uh staffing CBCs is actually a significant investment on the city.

Um I know that there's been some work around what those look like as well.

Yeah, so um absolutely.

Um if you remember our previous Deputy City Manager, Sonia Hallam, she had completed a um uh interviews with you all and done an assessment of all of our 30 plus CBCs to take a look at what the the steady state and what could be done to Councilmember Palmer's point.

Um that's not necessarily just on your side of the ledger.

Staff needs to support you all about just reimagining how we support our CBCs.

There's the immediate uh work planning for all of our various commissions and boards in terms of what they're doing on your behalf in a lot of ways, how they're chartered through uh their creation.

They are large part advisory to the city council.

And so realigning that is an area of of immense in you know, whether it's innovations or improvements, that's really important.

And then the the conversation about as I'm doing on with the staff set point from the department standpoint of consolidating departments, might there be a conversation about duplications and potentially putting more teams together to give more of uh opportunity for our volunteers that are serving on the CBCs to support you all.

And then there's also the conversation about various perhaps um council committees as well about how those changes might uh be part.

So that's coming to you all.

Let me come back to you as far as maybe a special uh study session for that report to be daylighted for the public so the public can see that report as well, and then speak with you all about getting your direction on where you want to go next with the various CBCs and might you want to seek some innovations or or perhaps directions for those various C VCs.

And then I I don't mean any offense because there are some CBCs that are uh pursuant to RCW, like the planning commission.

They have a very robust work plan.

Some CBCs they just need direction or some conversations and dialogue, what they're doing on your behalf in the public.

Yeah, yep.

Great.

Yeah, no, I think that would be a really good conversation.

Thank you so much.

Um I think that's all the questions that I have, and I appreciate the conversation that's been had here.

Any final by the apple?

All right.

See none.

Thank you so much, City Manager.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Next up uh we have other items of interest, and our second agenda item is critical areas preservation ordinance amendments.

There are several proposed changes.

I'd like to open the floor to for those council members to speak on their individual proposals.

We'll start off with uh Councilmember Rumbach.

Um thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um I just wanted to share that um there's um a few changes to the critical areas that we're gonna be talking about tonight.

Um so I wanted to draw attention to an item that will be on tonight's agenda.

Tonight's the first reading of the Critical Areas Preservation Ordinance.

And I will be bringing forward a substitute for consideration.

This is a substitute instead of an amendment for convenience's sake.

It makes a lot of small changes throughout the ordinance.

Um these minor changes are cleanups that were brought up in public written testimony and would be good to implement.

Um the first one is the Department of Ecology submitted comments requesting minor revisions related to the definitions of mitigation and wetlands so that they more closely align with the state's requirements.

Um public comment highlighted the need.

Um the second one is the public comment highlighted the need for additional clarity regarding the classification of a biodiversity area to clarify that the update is not reducing protections.

These are both fairly small and support the basic protections at the critical areas ordinance, and I appreciate your consideration this evening.

Thank you, Councilmember Rumba.

Any questions on this substitute ordinance?

Councilmember Walker.

Um not a question for Councilmember Rumba's amendment, but amendments in general.

Are we passing those tonight or are they getting passed with the final version of the ordinance?

With respect to that resolution, Councilmember, it's the option of the council whether to vote on it tonight or put it down.

Move it to another agenda.

I would just advise the council that the 21st is the last date for the council to meet in order to also form the foreign against committees.

I think you're on a different thing.

We're on the wrong time.

I'm sorry.

We're on the critical ordinance.

This is first reading tonight.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, this is first reading.

So we have a number of amendments.

Do the amendments go at the first reading or the final reading?

Well, my understanding is that the amendments will be voted on tonight.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions or clarifications?

All right.

Next.

Oh, next up I'm gonna have uh done, Councilmember.

Uh I am, thank you.

Can I ask one?

Councilmember Hines.

Yeah, just customer orders.

So this is a substitute because what you're asking is touching so many parts of the code that it would be cumbersome to have an actual amendment.

Correct.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh next up, we have some amendments from Councilmember Sidolgay.

Thank you, D depth.

Uh thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um the way it was done, there are three different amendments.

They're all related, they're related in that they are in um uh collaboration with and and taking into consideration um uh the letter that the Port of Tacoma wrote um to all of us uh earlier this year around critical areas um and the the draft ahead of us and in a um so amendment number one.

Um this amendment would actually remove uh any conflicts between the draft ordinance and the adopted tide flat sub-area plan regarding allowed uses in the critical aquifer recharge area by allowing the same uses in the CARA that were allowed um in the recently adopted tide flat sub-area plan.

Uh as uh most of us know, but just as a reminder, the tab tide flat sub-area plan was a multi-year, I believe seven years or longer.

Um multi-agency process.

If I try to count the number of jurisdictions, uh it'd be City of Tacoma, City of Fife, Port of Tacoma, the Piel of Tribe.

And the county.

There you go.

I'm like, I knew it was five.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Walker.

Um, to come up with um, you know, that created new zoning districts and carefully considered all allowed uses.

Um it is the city's most um comprehensive framework for balancing environmental protection, public health, and uh industrial land use and economic vitality um uh for the tide flats, and as a city council, I think it's important that we maintain our commitment to those stakeholders and community who partnered in creation of this plan.

Um so I also want to point out that this does not add um just critical areas review.

It would allow it would revert back to the allowed uses, but all those allowed uses would still be subject to the same critical uh area um uh review to ensure that um uh mitigation on those sites in that small section that's in the critical uh aquifer area um is uh appropriately done.

So it does not uh weaken any protections.

In fact, in my opinion, it strengthens protections uh slightly more than what we already had in in the tide flats, but um at the end of the day, um uh uh experts at uh the Port of Tacoma, experts on our side um did talk through all of this, uh all three amendments to come up with um uh uh um language that would work for for everyone around.

Um as I get into the next two amendments, both are technical amendments.

Uh again, this was uh through discussions between the Port of Tacoma and and the city.

Um these would really clarify metrics that as they're applied uh by the city and analyzing reasonable use of critical areas, uh private property, these technical amendments provide necessary clarifications to sections covering legal tests, general mitigation requirements, and wetland mitigation ratios, these uh refinements align the code with state law and best practices while improving regulatory clarity and consistency for both the applicants and administrators, and so these technical amendments are really around this idea of clarity and consistency.

So specifically in amendment number two, it would clarify metrics as they applied um by the city in analyzing reasonable use of critical area private property.

Washington state law requires allowances for reasonable use of the property so long as it's impacts the critical area.

Sorry.

And amendment number three, some specifics around that.

This um amendment would clarify the mitigation requirements for vegetated buffers around wetlands and streams by defining uh illegal fill based on the date of the Growth Management Act, allowing improvements uh permitted under other critical area code sections to remain in the buffer, such as trails and utilities and requiring vegetated buffers to be protected using critical areas, tracks, parcels, or conservation easements, uh including notice on title.

I will admit if there are questions about those last two, I will have to call a call a friend uh to get some details around that because there's it was uh pretty technical uh on those and I am happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Councilmember Sidalga.

Councilmember Walker.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um, thank you, Councilmember Sidalgay.

Um I know you and I had a conversation, and I told anyone who is interested, as long as this matches with the Tide Flat sub-area plan to your points earlier.

I'm happy with it.

My question is maybe for staff, in the text, it does not mention the Tide Flat sub-area plan, but does mention the South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District overlay.

Why is that?

Uh good afternoon, uh, Council Deputy Mayor.

Uh Robin Bolster Grant, I'm the division manager for land use.

Um the so uh thank you for your question.

If I understand um you're wondering why it's not explicit in the code language itself about tide flats versus uh South South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District.

Um I don't think that there's a specific reason for that.

I think because the because we have we need to be consistent with STGPD because it's all part of the same CARA, right?

It's it is um treated differently because it is closer to actually where groundwater uh is drinking water.

Um so it was more important, I think, to reference that to make everything cohesive in terms of what the CARA includes.

Um the tide flats piece, I guess I'm not I'm not clear why how we would have introduced that other than making changes to be consistent.

Um we certainly um can talk about that, but I guess I'm I'm I'm trying to figure out what the context would be for mentioning if it's just like a line saying this is this is consistent with the um the tide flat sub-area plan.

Is that is that sort of getting to your question?

Um no, I think you're taking my question to the next level.

I thought the first part was the answer to it.

Was that this is the technical language includes the um Southcoma Groundwater Protection District overlay?

The the plan is not the technical language.

So it doesn't need to be mentioned.

It just is consistent with the technical language.

It is.

Thank you.

But we do have to refer to it to make sure folks know that it is all of a piece.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Hines.

Yeah, oh Robin, before you walk away, sorry.

It's because I think what just to make sure I'm clear on this, right?

So the consistent with base zoning of seaport zoning districts.

So the base zoning of seaport zoning districts was something that came out of the sub-area plan.

Correct.

So by saying that it's consistent with that, it is saying it's consistent with the sub-area plan.

Exactly right.

Okay.

So it's that's helpful.

Thank you.

There could be like a little parenthesis, but uh that's fine.

Okay.

That was just to clarify for that part.

Thank you.

Um I was curious about uh I was doing a couple of another deep dive uh as I do and the planning commission meetings.

And can you help me understand like the time frame uh for when the planning commission started to discuss this these changes, these amendments.

Can you be a little bit more when they started to discuss the entire or pieces, the amendments like the CARA piece?

Certainly after the public um the public hearing that was, I believe, in uh August, the end of August, uh, that is when we received public comments and including the the port's um recommendations, things that they would want to see.

Again, specifically to what um the uh council member Sidalgay's amendments speak to.

Um we brought in additional information uh about the mapping and so that that started the conversation.

Um Lisa Spadoni, uh of course uh my subject matter expert who was abandoned me tragically today.

No, she'll be here tonight, uh so everybody knows.

Um but that started the conversation about the the disparity um the the lack of consistency with specific uh with respect to the specific high impact uses.

Um at the end of the day, uh it was the planning commission's desire to be more protective.

Um but as I think I've said before, um none of neither alternative, what is in the draft now uh nor the amendment uh that is gonna be before you are inconsistent with best available science, right?

So we've talked about before, I think best available science is a range, high, medium, low, all dependent on the location and and other uh physical attributes of of the area that we're talking about.

So um the planning commission took a more um conservative approach.

Um but the amendment is not inconsistent.

Um if that makes sense.

So it's the planning commission was considering that it seemed like it was about a like a year, right?

That this has been in discussion again.

I I don't there wasn't a robust discussion until we heard from the port.

So it really was the um letter that we received leading up to the public hearing uh in August.

Uh and that so from then until now we've we've had that discussion about what makes sense and and we totally understand the the need for consistency, and we have been talking about that um for a long time.

That that that's certainly our goal.

Um, but at the same time planning commission took a bit of a more conservative approach.

Thank you.

And then when was the tide flat flat sub area plan um voted in?

December.

December 25.

Okay.

So then the this was under consideration during that time is is what it sounds like.

It was not.

No.

This is a separate critical errors ordinance is separate from the Tide Plan sub-very plan.

What was gonna happen in some of the things that were uh passed in the Tide Flood sub-area plan, the the critical areas ordinance as has been presented to us would have modified some of those tide flood submarine plan uh initial adoption.

But I'm hearing so we started the conversation about the critical areas ordinance in the CARA, and we were talking about it in August.

That was the public hearing.

We started the conversation.

There is some overlap, but it wasn't explicit.

Um I mean, in terms of and and I I'm referring to I'm I'm I'm looking over to to Brian Boudet to um the the date that uh tide flats was finalized.

Yeah, um honestly I don't have that date on the top of my head.

So uh I I do think there was some level of overlap in the beginnings of the critical areas ordinance update conversation and the completion of the tide flat subway plan, but obviously the particular issues, I think, as the deputy mayor mentioned, the particular issues that the port has brought up really was just in the last you know eight months.

Yeah.

Yeah, I guess that's my main question is if this was something that honest I understand it was different groups that were com considering these things, but if this was something that was known during the the tide flat sub area plan conversation, I guess I'm wondering why it's not being perceived as like something that existed then, like it's not something new that's coming up as a question.

I think that and I wasn't I wasn't around for the for the tide flat, so I can't speak to that, but I can say that they were discrete projects, right?

I don't know that it was contemplated during the tide flats conversation discussion, adoption um that we needed to update our critical areas uh ordinance.

I don't know that those conversations uh happen concurrently.

Um perhaps Brian does.

Yeah.

I mean I'll just say, I mean, the Tide Flat Suburb Plan was uh long in coming and was uh very broad, but did not necessarily address every single issue uh forever and always.

So uh there was a recognition and going through the Tide Flat submarine plan that there would be future code updates, including critical areas, including shoreline master program, things like that.

And so at some level, those were issues that were left to some extent the additional detail to those future projects like this one.

So thank you.

Thank you for that.

Um I have additional questions, but I do have a a meeting uh later on to hopefully get some of those questions answered.

Um I'll say, you know, just with the understanding that you know this wasn't something that was that this book planning commission put forth like willy-nilly, like they did a lot of research, they did a ton of outreach.

Um I I feel like I haven't quite settled on being okay with an amendment um to that specific uh the critical areas plan.

Um so we'll see if I can get my my questions answered, but um thank you for answering that initial question.

Of course.

Thank you, Councilmember Palmer, or throw it back to Councilmember Hines.

Hey Robin, so quick question.

So the critical areas ordinance is something required by state law that we complete.

The sub-area plan is not a process required by state law that we need to complete.

That is an important distinction.

You're you're right, Councilmember.

I just when we talk about timing, the sub-area plan was a project that started way before Councilmember Walker and I started here and was ongoing for six plus years.

And the critical area ordinance did not consider it because it's a state law requirement and the planning commission was not at the table for the sub-area planning conversation.

I mean, they were part of the final rules are put forward, came out of it.

But I just to think about why they are timed up.

One was a process by which we engage with five parties that understand the future of our port, and one is a state law requirement to manage our critical areas even outside of the port of Tacoma.

Correct.

And so it the timing does seem like they're like, well, it's interesting how they hop operate separately, but that one is mandated by state, one is we voluntarily took it on.

Thank you.

Um if I can add to that, this um this specific amendment would uh effectively um I wish you we had a map that we could show.

It is a small one of the it is the westernmost finger, I guess, of the the of the port area.

If you kind of look at it on a map, they kind of look like fingers.

It is the westernmost finger right across from the FOSS waterway.

Um during the Tide Flats uh sub-area plan, there were several uh use categories that were decided on, again by five different jurisdictions coming together and there were uses that were allowed in it.

Um this amendment is saying we want to respect that very long seven-year process that took a lot of community and uh stakeholder um uh uh interest into account to figure out what is and isn't allowable.

What effectively this does is say we will still allow those uh uses, they will be subject to um critical area ordinance review for if there are um industries that come in that develop in those um uh uses uh they and they are going to locate in a part of the port that has a critical area, they will have to do mitigation.

Um the end product of what the planning commission recommended and the reason why the letter came in in April of this year is it the recommendation doesn't exist until the recommendations made to the the council.

We ultimately have final authority to review recommendations for cons uh for um for our consideration because we have the power to to pass it.

What this is saying is we will revert back to what this or uh this group had done over years and add the requirement that we review the critical areas and uh in collaboration with the port, and I do want to point out and thank uh both city staff and port staff for getting together and really discussing what that means, add clarity and definition in how things can be mitigated.

So because we are required to ensure that we are not stopping development, we're allowing for development, economic development, while being responsible to the environment.

Um to me, I see this as uh collaboration and a win-win that takes into account both the recommendations that were made by by planning commission and allowing for us um to respect a process that had taken a very long time to get to where we are.

We're not completely removing any of the work that has been done by either group, but finding a more happy medium, in my opinion, with this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Sidalgay.

Any other questions or comments for his amendments?

Seeing none.

The next one we have is from Councilmember Hines.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

I'll make this relatively brief.

So this amendment is really just meant to streamline the installation of minor utilities, which have a have temporary or no impacts on critical areas as allowed or as allowed activities, activities with allowed with staff review.

So currently you can see the code.

Within the right-of-way that's currently allowed.

This just wines uh clarity around the idea of temporary or installation of minor utilities, which are temporary and have no impact or or which have temporary impacts or no impacts on these areas, and to say that they would be allowed to, but still have to main follow all the other rules that are currently listed in the critical areas ordinance.

So happy to answer any questions.

The idea, right, why this is coming forward, right?

We have infrastructure that happens to be along some rural rights of ways.

Some of these rights of ways do happen to intersect with some of our critical areas.

We do have to provide opportunities to maintain and protect infrastructure so that we don't have bigger issues that come with it.

And this just provides clarity around the idea of minor utilities if necessary.

Thank you, Councilmember Hines.

Any questions on this amendment?

All right, seeing none, uh, I appreciate each and every single one of you for for you know putting these amendments together.

I know it did take some staff work and collaboration.

Uh I'm in supportive of all of them.

I really think that a lot of them are common sense um amendments and to help um uh make sure that we're and continue to make sure our critical areas are um maintained, uh, but in a way that uh benefits our entire community.

So with that, any other final questions or comments?

Anyone online?

All right, seeing none, we are on to our next item.

And our third agenda item is a council consideration request beyond the block sponsorship, and I'd like to call in Councilmember Palmer to begin the presentation.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um I'm excited to bring forward a council contingency fund request for 10,000 to sponsor a new program called Beyond the Block.

I will also mention this is my first council contingency fund request.

Uh Beyond the Block is a series of free drop-in events for young people between the ages of 11 and 16 at the Bryant Neighborhood Center in the Hilltop neighborhood.

It is held in collaboration with our Sisters House Hall Outdoors and Push for Dreams.

Events will take place every Wednesday and Friday from 5.30 to 8 p.m.

through July and possibly into August.

Each session of the Beyond the Block program is going to feature a different culturally informed theme to help participants gain valuable life skills and support.

Some of the themes that I think are going to be great for young people include social media, safety training, and discussion on topics like conflict resolution, public speaking, mental health, stress management, and self-esteem.

Participants will also receive a free meal and snacks.

Our sponsorship would help ensure significant staffing for all sessions, meals, and snacks for participants, program supplies, and location costs at Bryant Neighborhood Center.

I believe this type of programming helps advance a number of the city council's goals, including keeping young people safe and engaged.

Not all our young people are able or get their needs met by attending a school or parks location for evening events in the summer, but they still need a place to go.

So beyond the block will help fill this gap.

Beyond the block has also invited any of the council members who are interested to join one of the sessions.

So I want to thank my co-sponsors, Councilmember Ramba and Councilmember Scott.

Um and I hope you will all join us in support of this proposal on July 14th.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Palmer.

Councilmember Rombach.

Um thank you so much, Deputy Mayor.

And I just want to say thank you so much, Councilmember Palmer, for bringing this forward.

Um I was really happy to be a co-sponsor of this.

Um these are really great organizations, and I think this um times out well with um late nights but doesn't fit the bucket for getting funding from Tacoma Creates because of the mission doesn't fit arts and cultural and heritage so or science.

So I just want to say that I'm really happy that we could find a solution for them this year.

I'm hoping that if they continue to do this, we can help them in another way next year.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Any other additional questions or comments?

Thank you so much for bringing this forward.

Oh, did you want to go?

I just wanted to thank Council Member Rambah for taking that additional effort to bring those funds in.

Um I think it's going to be super helpful.

Thanks.

Great.

Uh thank you so much, Councilman Palmer, for for bringing this forward.

I'm I'm looking forward to supporting it.

All right.

Um, seeing no additional questions or comments, we do have another another item of interest.

I'm gonna call on Councilman Rumbah.

Um, thank you, Deputy Mayor.

I just wanted to remind people that um on July 17th.

I know it's a week ahead, but maybe you can put it on your calendar.

It's the 17th annual Crystal Judson Family Justice Center parking lot social.

Um we've changed it from a barbecue to a social because they're doing tacos this year instead of barbecue, which I think is fascinating and fabulous.

Um it's Friday, July 17th from 11 30 a.m.

to 1 p.m.

It's at um the Family Justice Center parking lot, which is 718 Court E.

Tacoma.

Um I hope that that people will come.

They uh they suggest you register ahead of time.

I think you could just register there too as well, but there'll be raffle prizes, and um, this is a fundraiser for their foundation that they have for the extra things like when they're trying to get um a motel room for a family that's experienced domestic violence or for bus passes, possibly um a cell phone because the person's phone was taken by their abuser.

Um, just things like that that aren't covered necessarily by the um advocate dollars that they have.

Um and I just um so proud of our council and our city um for being a part of Crystal Judson Family Justice Center and the good work that they do to support um those who are survivors and um victims of domestic violence.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Romba.

I've had a chance to go to those barbecues in the past.

It's always a really good time to support.

Um other items of interest.

Seeing none, uh any committee reports to share.

None.

I will call on Deputy City Manager Alison Griffith uh for agenda review and city manager's report.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Uh Deputy Mayor and Council for your awareness this evening.

There's one ceremonial on tonight's agenda.

That's proclaiming July 2026 as LGBTQIA 2S plus Pride Month here in Tacoma.

There are no modifications on tonight's agenda.

There is one opportunity for public comment this evening.

That's under regular public comment, which is regarding motions, resolutions and ordinances on tonight's agenda.

Please let us know if there's any questions so staff can be prepared and for your review attached to the study session agenda is the weekly report to council.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Deputy City Manager.

Any final questions or comments from the council?

Hearing none, I will understand the final motion.

Move adjourned.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to adjourn.

All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All right.

Any opposed?

We stand adjourned.

Thank you, everybody.

Have a great day.